Chhattisgarh HC Quashes ITPA Case Against Sex Worker, Applies Supreme Court's Budhadev Karmaskar Directions

A Division Bench at Bilaspur quashed an FIR and charge-sheet under the Immoral Traffic Act against an adult woman, holding that prosecuting a consenting sex worker violates binding Supreme Court directions.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has quashed FIR No. 493/2022, the consequential charge-sheet, and Criminal Case No. 4121/2023 registered against an adult woman as accused No. 3 under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA). The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, deciding the petition on 13 August 2026, held that continuing the proceedings against a consenting adult sex worker amounted to an abuse of the process of law and directly contravened directions issued by the Supreme Court in Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant relief, merging the earlier interim stay of 25 July 2023 into the final order.

The FIR, Arrest, and Petition

Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, registered FIR No. 493/2022 for offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the ITPA following a raid on Hotel Hayat, Raipur. The petitioner was picked up, arrested, and subsequently released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur. She claimed she was neither residing at nor present in Hotel Hayat at the time of the raid and that she had been falsely implicated after being called to the police station. She further alleged that the police had informally assured her that no charge-sheet would be filed, but one was nonetheless filed against her and other co-accused, giving rise to Criminal Case No. 4121/2023 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur.

The petitioner moved this court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the FIR, the charge-sheet, and the pending criminal case. She also sought compensation for wrongful detention and wrongful prosecution, contending that the proceedings violated her fundamental right to liberty.

Arguments on the ITPA Provisions and Disputed Presence

Mr. Raza Ali, appearing for the petitioner, pressed two distinct lines of challenge. First, the petitioner disputed the factual basis: she was not at Hotel Hayat during the raid and therefore could not be said to have committed any act falling within Sections 3, 4, 5 or 7 of the ITPA. Second, and independently, even assuming some connection with the place, the petitioner — being an adult who participates in sex work with consent — was entitled to the protection spelled out by the Supreme Court in Budhadev Karmaskar. The registration of the FIR, the arrest, and the continuation of proceedings were said to fall within the categories that warrant quashing, as identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and reiterated in Sundar Babu & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 244.

Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate for the State, opposed the petition. She submitted that the FIR was registered on credible information, that investigation had produced supporting material, and that the factual disputes — including the petitioner's alleged presence at Hotel Hayat — were matters for the trial court to adjudicate. She argued that no exceptional circumstance existed to warrant interference at the pre-trial stage.

What the Budhadev Karmaskar Directions Say

The Division Bench extracted the relevant directions from the Supreme Court's order dated 19 May 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 135/2010, Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal. The court quoted the directions in paragraphs (i) and (iii) of that order:

“Sex workers are entitled to equal protection of the law. Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of ‘age’ and ‘consent’.”

The Supreme Court had further directed that where it is clear that the sex worker is an adult participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action. On raids specifically, the direction was that since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running a brothel is unlawful, sex workers must not be arrested, penalised, harassed or victimised. Those directions were issued in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution.

The Chhattisgarh bench also took note of the Supreme Court's subsequent judgment in Prajwala v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 574, in which the court reiterated that voluntary sex workers are not to be harassed or victimised during raids on brothels, confirming that the Budhadev Karmaskar directions remain in force.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench examined the prosecution's own case as set out in the FIR and charge-sheet. It found that the allegations against the petitioner, even as projected by the prosecution, essentially amounted to her being identified as a sex worker found in connection with the activities at Hotel Hayat. No specific allegation appeared in the material on record demonstrating that she independently performed an act constituting the ingredients of the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 or 7 of the ITPA, beyond attributing to her the status of a sex worker.

The bench treated this gap as decisive. The ITPA offences under challenge concern keeping or managing a brothel (Section 3), living on the earnings of prostitution (Section 4), procuring or inducing a person (Section 5), and seducing or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution (Section 7). The court found no material in the charge-sheet that disclosed the essential ingredients of any of these provisions as against the petitioner in her individual capacity.

The bench then aligned this finding with the Budhadev Karmaskar directions. Proceeding against an adult woman merely on account of her alleged status as a sex worker, without establishing her commission of a specific punishable act, was precisely the form of harassment and victimisation the Supreme Court had prohibited. Allowing such proceedings to continue, the bench held, would defeat those binding directions.

Weight was also placed on the court's earlier interim order of 25 July 2023. At that stage the bench had already examined the allegations against the petitioner in the light of Budhadev Karmaskar and recorded a finding that a strong case existed for staying the proceedings. No new material had been brought on record by the State thereafter to justify a different conclusion. The bench held that the interim order therefore deserved to be given final effect.

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed the petition. FIR No. 493/2022 registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, for offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, is quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner, who is accused No. 3 in the FIR and the final report. The consequential charge-sheet and Criminal Case No. 4121/2023 (State v. Viplav Chaughadiya & Others) pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, stand quashed to the same extent. The interim order dated 25 July 2023 stands merged with the final order.